Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 Next
Comments 36701 to 36750:
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:04 AM on 1 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Can this also be unified with the "blimp theory" whereby, after collapse into successive states of denial, the whole thing blows up into a giant blimp?
See! Look, there's a blimp now!
Wow! Okay, what were we talking about?...
-
Magma at 06:42 AM on 1 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
I like this new hypothesis of climate denial indeteterminacy. It could probably also be illustrated as a multipanel cartoon showing a fuzzy grey cloud that collapses into completely different states depending on the input.
-
Composer99 at 05:42 AM on 1 May 2014What’s your carbon footprint and where does it come from?
I noticed similar issue as ajki; I can barely see the "Start" button and can't get past the country selection page.
-
Composer99 at 05:25 AM on 1 May 2014Palmer United Party needs to go back to school on carbon facts
The radiative forcing numbers might not be very legible in the above, so here is the source for the image.
-
Composer99 at 05:22 AM on 1 May 2014Palmer United Party needs to go back to school on carbon facts
Poster @15:
In point of fact the radiative forcings from various natural and anthropogenic causes have been quantified. Here is the graph from IPCC AR5:
Climate change/global warming is simply the result of the change in radiative forcing. Thus modern climate change is almost entirely the result of anthropogenic activities.
Internal oscillations such as PDO, AMO, ENSO, and the like do not affect climate change/global warming unless they have a quantifiable impact on radiative forcing. Mostly they just move energy around in the climate system, which definitely has effects on how humans perceive global warming and how the impacts of warming are spread through the system. Nevertheless such oscillations do not modify climate change/global warming in any fundamental manner.
-
ajki at 04:21 AM on 1 May 2014What’s your carbon footprint and where does it come from?
Second / third link ("here" and link to Adobe AIR) are not operational.
Are there any hardware / software prerequisites to start the flash online version? For example, with a limited screenspace of a netbook (1024x600) I'm not able to select any "start"-button on the introduction screen.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 04:11 AM on 1 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
I gather there is some discussion of it perhaps being 'time for an “official” climate skeptics organization, one that produces a policy statement, issues press releases, and provides educational guidance?'. Of course the reason this won't ever happen is because if this organisation nailed the skeptics colours to the mast and stated their beliefs clearly and unambiguously, that would "collapse the wave function" (if that is the correct terminology) and prevent the oscillation in beliefs so often observed in discussions on climate change.
-
JohnMashey at 03:50 AM on 1 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Yes, a good model, and see also:
Pseudoskeptics Are Not Skeptics
-
wili at 03:41 AM on 1 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
OT: I had some trouble getting into your site recently. It called for verification to just look at the site, but when I put my name and password in, it didn't accept them. Were you being hacked again? Should I be worried that I gave my password to some bad actor?
Moderator Response:Fear not, Wili. We've been cleaning up some fuzz growing on the site configuration and committed an error in connection with that.
Here's an essay offering some amusing insight into the writhing bag of snakes and hamsters hidden just beneath the glossy exterior of the Internet. Only about 10% hyperbole. :-)
-
Jose_X at 02:55 AM on 1 May 2014Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate
Sure, humans don't have the ability to seriously harm life on earth, and the Cold War was really about the rise of polar bear batallions.
-
Jim Eager at 02:39 AM on 1 May 2014What’s your carbon footprint and where does it come from?
I live in a small, semi-detached urban house with two other people that has been retrofitted with a high efficiency furnace, thermopane windows and as much insulation as will fit in the wall cavities and attic. We use 100% renewable or low-carbon electricity (yes, 100%: hydro, nuclear, wind, solar), heat with natural gas in a cold climate, rarely use an in-window air conditioner on only the hottest days, and take only showers. We drive a 7 year old hybrid when we don't use public transit or bike, never fly, and don't buy a lot of stuff. We scored just under half our national average, but that's still just over 9 tons, including the bottom 2.25 tons representing everything that we don't have control over (industry, commerce, institutional, government, infrastructure, transport of goods, etc.).
We're already below half the national average, and there's not much more we can wring out of the existing house. Ditching the car is not an option at present, but km traveled will go way down in a couple years when we retire. Not sure where further substantial reductions can come from.
-
CBDunkerson at 02:21 AM on 1 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Orwell called it 'doublethink', "The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them".
Of course, the example above shows that climate deniers have achieved a whole new level of 'consciousness'... triplethink. For when doublethink just isn't crazy enough.
-
Poster9662 at 02:17 AM on 1 May 2014Palmer United Party needs to go back to school on carbon facts
Logically I suppose you might say something like "At present CO2 from human actions is believed to be the prime cause of climate change/global warming but the precise magnitude of this is, as yet, not established. Similarly the precise magnitude of the effects of natural events such as the PDO, AMO etc has yet to be determined. However, as humans can influence the CO2 produced as a result of their actions but probably can't influence natural events to any significant extent, current thinking is focussed more on what we can influence rather than on what we cannot. That said however, it would be unwise to assume natural events have no effect on climate change/global warming. Consequently continued studies of all possible factors is essential.
Moderator Response:[JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of excessive repetition which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. Please read the Comments Policy and adhere to it.
-
swampfoxh at 23:58 PM on 30 April 2014What’s your carbon footprint and where does it come from?
I have a similar situation to John Wise. Farm, log cabin, own (organic) food, wood stove, little vehicular travel, wife is 1.5 miles to work. My carbon footprint is still too high according to the calulator. Why? Because there are four billion too many people on the planet. We passed carrying capacity back in 1936 at two billion. Back then, people's carbon footprint was just at the level the planet could handle through the carbon cycle. Now? trouble..real trouble. Think about it, if there were 1 billion people on the planet each emitting 50 tons of CO2 there wouldn't be a "planet problem". So, reducing the carbon footprint - per person- ain't gonna work at 6 billion headed for 9. This is why Elizabeth's book on the Sixth Extinction event is pure prophesy.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 20:57 PM on 30 April 2014Palmer United Party needs to go back to school on carbon facts
Poster @13
"Why do you not include natural factors that are thought to have at least some effect..."
There is an interesting issue here Poster. How does one compare different possible processes that have vastly differing degrees of likelihood of being true? Does one simply lump them all together and say 'here is some stuff that might be relevent'?
Or does one look at each process and say - 'this one is pretty damn certain, where as that is possible but really quite speculative'. If we don't differentiate the likelihood of different things being true don't we create a situation where our ability to evaluate them is compromised?
-
Poster9662 at 20:16 PM on 30 April 2014Palmer United Party needs to go back to school on carbon facts
denisaf@11 Why do you not include natural factors that are thought to have at least some effect such as the PDO, AMO, Milankovich cycles, natural aerosols etc? Your comment "People are more likely to respond soundly if they understand what is actually happening." is very valid. Having been a universit y academic in area of biochemistry for over 30 years I know from personal experience that getting others to understand scientific concepts you requires clarity of expression, attention to detail and some humour. What it does not require is the sarcastic, scathing, patronising and belittling responses so often given by those who consider their view of climate change is the only possible view. I hasten to add that this does not refer to anything you have written in your comment above.
-
peter7723 at 19:00 PM on 30 April 2014Palmer United Party needs to go back to school on carbon facts
I like the image of 97% of scientists. But the carbon cycle image does not grab the cognitive faculties of the non-analytical person. It requires time spent on it and some abstract understanding. A better image would be a pair of scales, with 350g weight on each tray, to one of which is added 1g of weight. The scales go out of balance, which is the point to be conveyed. (Then perhaps you can add the carbon cycle image).
Moderator Response:(Rob P) - Agreed. The same thing was pointed out by another SkS writer. We'll work on it - the scales concept is interesting. We're open to suggestions.
-
denisaf at 18:32 PM on 30 April 2014Palmer United Party needs to go back to school on carbon facts
One of the reasons why people find it hard to accept that they are causing climate change is the fact that they are not actually doing it. They just make the decisions. It is the operation of systems (coal-fired power stations, cars, trucks, aircraft, ships) and actvities such as logging are doing the irrversible damage. People are more likely to respond soundly if they understand what is actually happening.
-
Trevor_S at 14:31 PM on 30 April 2014What’s your carbon footprint and where does it come from?
@ 5 John. I suspect that it's not aimed at you. Similarly here in Australia, I sold my business, moved to rural area with a milder climate and live in a very thick walled mudbrick house (mud from the little dam in front of the house used to store water for the vegetables and the orchard in the dry periods, pumped using renewable energy). A pedestal fan is more than enough in summer. We have a high efficiency wood heater that doesn't use much wood in the short, snowless winters and I live off the small income that business sale generated (retired at age 42, now 48) We grow much of our own stuff in our garden (seed saving etc) and have a small orchard. We keep, kill and breed our own free range chickens for eggs and meat and our electricity is renewable. My parter cycles to a part time job 3 days a week.
We do this because one gets a sense of things actually living this way, eating what's available in the garden, when it's in season, what ever fruit is in season and trying to ensure you have a rotation so you have fruit and vegetables all year, I am sure you underatnd but not so sure others do.Maybe the author can do a carbon budget profile on submission and publish them here in a separate section, to show how things can be different ? Low CO2e lifestyles are possible and no cave necessary.
I would be interested to see what these are once input emissions are used for the necessities let alone the emissions for sheer lunacy. Like how much does it cost in emissions because bureaucracies like the Tax Office have to send me a letter in the post instead of emailing it to me, I use this as an example as I received one yesterday :) -
jyyh at 14:14 PM on 30 April 2014What’s your carbon footprint and where does it come from?
good reminder, thanks.
-
Trevor_S at 13:58 PM on 30 April 2014What’s your carbon footprint and where does it come from?
When I learned for the first time that an average European is responsible for emissions of almost 10 tons of carbon dioxide per year (and an American double that amount) I was really shocked
Why shocked ? Surely after several decades of having it front and centre this has to be obvious ?
The calculator lets you check your impact on the planet given other sources of energy, changes in industry and transport
I am still having trouble grasping this, or when you say students do you mean children ? The whole "keep the fossil fuels in the ground thing" has surely not passed people by, the whole "eat less meat thing" can't have passed people by, let alone owning a meat eating pet, driving a car, flying for holidays etc The whole Inconvenient Truth thing ? The IPCC thing over several decades ? This is know by all who emit. I am not expecting the khalari bushmen to be informed but those guys aren't the problem. Only the deliberately ignorant can't be aware and no amount of education will overcome the "deliberate" bit (watch any discussion on creationism v evolution for proof of that).
I am genuinely lost here (and am not having a go at the author), this seems like a bizarre thought experiment, the very reason people push back against CO2e reduction is how they think will impact their lifestlye today and tomorrow.
Below are various quotes I have clipped from Guardian CIF section over time that speak to this...
Someone who accepts the science yet finds a way to avoid taking personal responsibility for his or her share of the problem probably can't be convinced to act by more science. They have already distanced their behaviour from contributing to the problem. The more you repeat the science to that person, the more that person blames government, oil companies etal for satisfying that person's own demand for their fossil fuelled lifestyle.
People who campaign against slavery don't own slaves. People who campaign against smoking don't smoke. People who campaign against violence against women do not commit violence against women. And so it goes for almost all causes - except for climate change. Then, somehow, it becomes not only acceptable but almost obligatory for people who campaign against fossil fuels to burn more than their fair share of them.
James Garvey speaks to this with Causal Inefficacy
@3 It's not so much about frugality (albeit that can help, it's about emissions) Buying a cheap used car, taking the dog for a walk instead of joining a gym, flying on a budget airline and holidaying during the low season are all frugal activites that leave large C02e footprints. Or am I confusing your concept of frugality with living a simpler life ah la Ms Pick ? Confronting people with their large emissions is still socially taboo because it's acceptable and you're expected to try and match emissions with Al Gore. I have a hell of a time telling friends not to fly across the country (or across the World) to go for a hike etc, let alone not driving 4 hours to go for the same thing. Take a hike is the least of the retorts :) and yet if they were engaged in something equally repugnant like slavery ? They gasp at the thought and "hyperbole" is mixed in with plenty of other adjectives but rampant CO2e emissions, that's much worse... much much worse and yet ... crickets...
willi @ 4 gets it :)
The whole thing is a circle jerk (can I say that on here ?) Look at say The Guardian, they have a section promoting Travel, then juxtapose that with the section on Climate Change. Allegorically it would be like having a whole section on paedophilia and people being okay with that... and that from a "responsible" media outlet. We're in some sort of bizzaro world. We are so far away from "getting serious" on emissions reductions it's laughable. No way we're getting anywhere until people who do get the Science stop emitting.
The recently embroiled incontroversy, Stephan Lewandowsk wrote about this years ago:
When shown the trajectory of annual CO2 emissions, which to date has exhibited an ever-accelerating increase, the majority of people will propose that stabilization of emissions, or a slight decrease, will be sufficient to stabilize atmospheric CO2.
This is completely and inescapably false.
Whatever we're doing now has failed spectacularly to reduce global emissions, more of the same seems absurd.
-
Doug Bostrom at 13:44 PM on 30 April 2014Palmer United Party needs to go back to school on carbon facts
Here is a translation of Palmer's thinking, in words we can all understand.
You'll want to stopper your children's ears.
-
John Wise at 13:27 PM on 30 April 2014What’s your carbon footprint and where does it come from?
I live in the country and farm for a living. My carbon footprint according to this calculator is high,but it didn't give me the option of inputting my reality. For example,I live in a straw bale house that is super insulated and uses very little wood to heat,but there was no way to indicate that. I don't use public transit,because there isn't any! I eat meat,but I raise it myself on grass-no grain feeding and no long distance shipping. I eat a lot of frozen food in the winter-which I grew myself,so fewer trips to town to buy food that was shipped from afar.
-
wili at 11:38 AM on 30 April 2014What’s your carbon footprint and where does it come from?
Good reality check. I score under one planet at www.myfootprint.org, but over 9 planets here. Let's get real. Anything remotely resembling a modern life style is f'ing the planet to death. (Sorry for the abreviated profanity, but really, what else can express our utter disregard for the most basic, fundamental ethics of, at the very least, not utterly destroying the next generations chance of the most meager of existence?)
-
empirical_bayes at 10:13 AM on 30 April 2014HadCRUT4: A detailed look
I know this post is a bit old, but I'm working with the HadCRUT4 ensemble of series, and was checking to see if something was well known before I approached Hadley/MetOffice with the question. In particular, Wilks in his Section 7.7.1 of 2011 3rd edition Statistical Methods, and Palmer, Roberto Buizza, Hagedorn, Lawrence, and Smith, in their:
Palmer, T. N., R. Buizza, R. Hagedon, A. Lawrence, M. Leutbecher, and L. Smith, 2006: Ensemble prediction: A pedagogical perspective. ECMWF Newslett., 106, 10–17.
as quoted, for instance, in WG1AR5 Chapter 11, make a point that (to quote Wilks) "Often, operational ensemble forecasts are found to exhibit too little dispersion". I have read Morice, et al, carefully, but, apart from "... the 100 constituent ensemble
members sample the distribution of likely surface temperature anomalies given our current understanding of these uncertainties. This approach follows the use of the ensemble method to represent observational uncertainty in the HadSST3 [Kennedy et al., 2011a, 2011b] ensemble data set". I have also looked at Kennedy's 2014 "A review of uncertainty in in situ measurements and data sets of sea surface temperature". Maybe we just don't know.If we don't, is there some way of doing "MOS postprocessing", after Wilks, to these data? Or does anyone know if that was done, or is routinely done?
Sorry to be on a highly technical point here. I am exploring whether or not the variance of the HadCRUT4 ensemble is highly understated. I'm seeking to try to estimate the internal variability of climate using these and the covariance estimates they provide, although I do not yet understand exactly what they are the covariances of.
Thanks.
-
calyptorhynchus at 08:52 AM on 30 April 2014Palmer United Party needs to go back to school on carbon facts
I wouldn't waste too much time on Clive Palmer. As a coal mining magnate it's in his own interest to misrepresent climate science. He has vowed to use his party's votes to vote down carbon pricing (the policy of the previous Labor government-he has also withheld his companies' payments under this scheme), but will also oppose the Liberal Party's much-derided Direct Action policy too. Looks as if he just doesn't want action on global warming in any shape or form.
-
Kevin C at 06:50 AM on 30 April 2014How global warming broke the thermometer record
SSTs are hard!
I agree it's issue. Let's see what ERSST can do with their next release.
-
localis at 05:26 AM on 30 April 2014What’s your carbon footprint and where does it come from?
Should be a compulsory test for everyone (certainly in the developed world). It gave me quite a shock to find that my (what I thought) frugal life-style still coughed up around 9 tons. Must do better!
-
Stranger8170 at 04:21 AM on 30 April 2014Models are unreliable
Thanks Alexandre but I was hoping for someting more that I could sink my teeth into.
-
JPSwede at 04:03 AM on 30 April 2014What’s your carbon footprint and where does it come from?
Thanks for the interesting link. I thought my score would be low. I'm only traveling by public transport and bike. I'm living in a flat and I seldom fly abroad etc etc. But still ended up on 7 tons. If everyone on this planet would have the same standards as me, that would result in 1.4 times higher emissions, and to stop climate change in that scenario would require 7 planets. That's scary. (If I understod the summary correctly)
-
Paul Pukite at 03:41 AM on 30 April 2014How global warming broke the thermometer record
KC, looking forward to any bucket/engineRoom corrections you can make.
This is the most problematic area in the SST data. I think the WWII time interval is completely messed up.
-
Alexandre at 03:37 AM on 30 April 2014Models are unreliable
Re Stranger at 02:28 AM on 30 April, 2014
Try this. Not very conclusive, but it has some preliminary hints.
-
Stranger8170 at 03:05 AM on 30 April 2014Models are unreliable
I asked this question because I posted on our newspapaer the following.
The letter writer wrote: " Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, the international n February, he spoke before Congress about the futility of relying on computer models to predict the future."
I wrote, "But computer models predicted our current state of warming more than 30 years ago when winter temperatures were consistently sub zero around the nation. They predicted sea level rise. They identify trends not year to year predictions."
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
This is a reply I recieved.
Moderator Response:(Rob P) - The climate model simulations in CMIP5 do indeed show greater warming than is observed. But the simulations use projections from either 2000 onwards, or 2005 onwards, rather than actual observations. This animation below shows what happens when the models are based on what actually happened to the climate system - well our best estimate so far anyway.
See this post: Climate Models Show Remarkable Agreement with Recent Surface Warming on Schmidt et al (2014).
-
Stranger8170 at 02:28 AM on 30 April 2014Models are unreliable
Can someone give me some information concerning John C. Fyfe; & Nathan P. Gillett which that claims global warming over the past 20 years is significantly less than that calculated from 117 simulations of the climate?
-
Alexandre at 01:13 AM on 30 April 2014What’s your carbon footprint and where does it come from?
I like the idea, but it does not have the options that apply to me here in Brazil: no house heating and ethanol car.
Apart from that, it's a good way of having some feel of how diverse are the sources of CO2 emissions.
-
Tom Curtis at 01:09 AM on 30 April 2014Palmer United Party needs to go back to school on carbon facts
Muzz @6, first, you are being very pedantic in that context clearly indicates the scientists in question to be those knowledgable on global warming. Second, even on the pedantic interpretation, 82% of scientists in general accept the antropogenic origin of recent global warming. Significantly, the reduction in acceptance comes mainly from scientists who are neither expert in the field, nor active researchers - ie, those least qualified to advise on the topic.
-
mancan18 at 01:08 AM on 30 April 2014Palmer United Party needs to go back to school on carbon facts
The reason why the Australian public think that there is only a 58% agreement between climate scientists is because the debate in the popular media is mostly political where anything seems to be said rather than it being a scientific debate based on evidence. Also, the basic theory behind the scientific argument i.e. increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to humans burning fossil fuels will lead (and is leading) to global warming which will change the climate, is not being stated often enough in the media.
It should be fairly easy to prove this theory with some basic physics and chemistry. Most of the debate in the media concentrates on what we are seeing and what it means rather than on the very basis of the theory. If the theory isn't correct then it undermines our understanding of the science of atoms, the electromagnetic spectrum, isotopes, fluid dynamics and chemical reactions. If the theory isn't correct then it actually undermines our understanding of some of the very science that underpins our technological society.
-
Muzz at 23:58 PM on 29 April 2014Palmer United Party needs to go back to school on carbon facts
To be pedantic perhaps, Tony Jones did say a group of scientists, not a group of climate scientists, so amongst that group it might possibly be less than 97%
-
chriskoz at 22:09 PM on 29 April 2014Palmer United Party needs to go back to school on carbon facts
Riduna@4,
Based on the recently published details of current Government’s “Direct Action” scheme, my personal opinion is that, for both environment and australian people, it would be better to leave Australia without any legislative basis for reducing carbon emissions, rather than replacing existing Carbon Tax with said “Direct Action”.
The reason for my opinion is that “Direct Action”:
- will work against the emission reduction by rewarding polluters (giving them money for the "promise" to reduce emissions that may or may not work in practice)
- does not create any incentives on the consumer side to reduce/alter their energy usage
- will cost govts money that they will need to find by cutting some social spending or increasing base taxes (what they are already doing now)
So, while I agree with you that PUP's voting according to Palmer's vested interests after 1 July, will likely result in the complete alienation of Australia from global mitigation efforts, this result would not be the worst ever outcome. Palmer is a complete sciece denier at the most basic level as we've seen above, but at the same time he also understands the futility (and potential negative economic impact) of ill-constructed "Direct Action".
-
Kevin C at 18:01 PM on 29 April 2014How global warming broke the thermometer record
Alexandre: it's not a problem I've looked at, but I was pretty impressed with RegEM. I doubt we can improve on that.
There's interesting work to be done on the early instrumental record though. There are some significant divergences there, although they are far less topical than the recent record.
-
Riduna at 10:16 AM on 29 April 2014Palmer United Party needs to go back to school on carbon facts
It is important that Clive Palmer understands why human greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for global warming. This essay makes it very clear why this is the case, so one would hope that Palmer and his Party (PUP) read this lucid explanation.
This is particularly important given that PUP may hold the balance of power in the Senate after 1 July, 2014. Clive Palmer has already indicated that his Party is likely to oppose legislation to establish the Government’s “Direct Action” scheme for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He correctly describes it as costly and ineffective.
However, he has also indicated that PUP is likely to support abolition of the Carbon Tax and the extensive measures aimed at promoting renewable energy and the independent science-based body responsible for advising government on future carbon reduction targets. The net result of such voting would be to leave Australia without any legislative basis for reducing carbon emissions.
While this might be a satisfactory outcome for the owners of high emission businesses – of which Palmer is one – it would also ensure that Australia would not meet its treaty obligations to reduce carbon emissions.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:10 AM on 29 April 2014Palmer United Party needs to go back to school on carbon facts
John Cook, was the survey you conducted a survey of Australians based on US demographics, or a survey of US citizens based on US demographics? If the later, on what basis do you extent the results to Australians?
Re terminology, "consensus" is obviously unsuitable in this context. The consensus opinion is that opinion least disagreed with across all involved, and which the vast majority can agree with. Thus it would need to be expressed as a range, and a range that encompasses at least 90% of responses. On this issue, among the general public that range is likely to be 58% +/- 42% which would be singularly uninformative. I personally would recommend using popular language, but including a more exact description in brackets, such as:
"But when the average Australian thinks the consensus is not 97%, but just 58% (mean response), there is clearly a public misconception about what the scientists really think."
Of course, for all I know, such paranthetic clarrifications may be as bad as mathematical equations in terms of readership.
Response:[JC] The survey of Australians used Australian demographics and the survey of US citizens used US demographics.
-
Don9000 at 06:43 AM on 29 April 2014Palmer United Party needs to go back to school on carbon facts
John,
"the average Australian thinks the consensus is not 97%, but just 58%"
First a question, on the page with the bar graph, you write that the data is based on "a survey of a US representative sample." What is that? To me, an American, "US" means people from my country. So, what is "a US representative sample"?
Next, I'm not sure referring to "the average Australian" as you do is particularly useful. I'm always happy to see breakdowns of just what various groups of Australians (and Americans and Brits and Canadians, etc.) think about issues, but it seems to me that "the average Australian" or "the average American" or "the average any other citizen" is a very nebulous person indeed and the 58% figure you refer to in actuality characterizes the situation for all Australians. For example, this might be a more accurate way to phrase the idea: "When recently polled, the consensus among Australians was that only 58% of climate scientists agree that humans are responsible for global warming."
My guess is that a breakdown by political parties or along rural/urban populations or by the degree of education attained would be much more instructive, albeit potentially embarrassing to certain groups.
Response:[JC] Apologies for the technical jargon. A "US representative sample" is a small group (e.g., a few hundred people) whose demographics are selected so that they represent the entire USA population. For example, one of the demographics is age. If my survey sample was all young people, it wouldn't represent the population as a whole. So I had to make sure the distribution of ages in my sample matched the distribution of ages in the entire USA population. Similarly, a representative sample should match the demographics on gender and income level.
Fair comment re "average Australian". I'm talking about what you get when you average out the answer among the whole spectrum of Australians. Trying to explain things in simple, plain English introduces imprecision and science communication is always a balancing act between readability/accessibility and technical precision.
-
ubrew12 at 04:38 AM on 29 April 2014Palmer United Party needs to go back to school on carbon facts
Upton Sinclair ("It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it") may apply here. "What's that you say, its 97% and not 50%? Hey Clive, this fellow here says its 47%!!"
-
Alexandre at 02:58 AM on 29 April 2014How global warming broke the thermometer record
Kevin C,
Not only in present intrumental records, but infilling is also resorted to in past surface temp paleoclimate reconstructions. Maybe even more so.
Is there some way of testing those algorythms as well?
-
Kevin C at 08:09 AM on 28 April 2014How global warming broke the thermometer record
The actual numbers are in the report.
However the main significance of this result is that the one thing which specialists (as opposed to lay persons) have questioned about our results is that our trends were higher than GISTEMP. And rightly so - when you produce a scientific result which is at odds with previous comparable results, then it is important to find out why. This bias explains about 2/3 of the difference between GISTEMP and our infilled data.
(We've got one more probable bias in GISTEMP to double-check and write up - it's not very interesting but along with the SSTs it closes the remaining gap. So I think the difference with Berkeley is now the most interesting area for further study.)
-
grindupBaker at 06:44 AM on 28 April 2014Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
Me @ #82 I meant to comment this for 25 April 2014 post, not here.
-
grindupBaker at 06:41 AM on 28 April 2014Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
VictorVenema #1 "those adjustments are huge". Hang on, those adjustments are huge for that region and obviously of great interest in knowing who is computing best, but offhand I think they look negligible as a global adjustment (the underlying topic). My assessment is only based on my eyeballing GISTEMP-Cowtan & Way graphic and estimating ranges of differences and areas but it's a low order of magnitude. I have 0.8Mk2 @ -1C<=>-2C, 1.0Mk2 @ 0C<=>-1C, 8.5Mk2 @ 0C<=>-0.3C and 8.5Mk2 @ 0C<=>+0.8C (GISTEMP a warmer anomaly for this one). I compute -0.0025C, -0.0010C, -0.0025C and +0.0066C as global equivalents for a net effect on GMST of +0.0006C (Cowtan & Way showing this much less global warming than GISTEMP) but my final quantity detail is not significant and might be incorrectly signed because I used the graphic, not data, and minimal effort so what it indicates is only that it's negligible as a global adjustment.
Per 2013-11-13 post, the Cowtan & Way paper regarding HadCRUT4 (on which this post is an interesting aside) noted HadCRUT4 at +0.046°C per decade GMST anomaly, NASA at +0.080°C per decade, the C&W kriging and hybrid data sets at +0.11C and +0.12°C per decade. That's the one with global adjustments are huge .
-
Mal Adapted at 05:00 AM on 28 April 2014Climate's changed before
Autumnleaves's comment brings to mind Charles Darwin's observation that "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge".
The response by Tom Curtis was outstanding.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:12 AM on 28 April 2014How global warming broke the thermometer record
Kevin C @5.
Rather than a key point being that short term trends are not a good basis for drawing conclusions, I suggest that the best understanding requires all possible factors to be well understood. That means the process of developing the best overall understanding of what is going on requires the constant investigation into, and improvement of, the understanding of each potential factor.
That is understood in a community of people genuinely interested in constantly pursuing increased understanding. However, this issue faces challenges from a group of critics desperate for it not to be better undestood by the general population. And the general population contains many people eager for any excuse not to better understand this issue. Many people will fight against any indication that it is unacceptable to benefit from burning fossil fuels.
What is most important is to constantly point out that the improvement of understanding that develops confirms (does not contradict) the unacceptability of massive burning of fossil fuels, regardless of the popularity of that activity among those who want to benefit from it. It can be added that CO2 impacts are only part of the troubles and impacts created by the fighting over the right to benefit most from burning fossil fuels.
Prev 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 Next
"But computer models predicted our current state of warming more than 30 years ago..."
No, they haven't. Please read:
“Recent observed and simulated warming” by John C. Fyfe & Nathan P. Gillett published in Nature Climate Change 4, 150–151 (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2111 Published online 26 February 2014"
I tried to find some disscusion here, REal Climate and Tamino and didn't have any success.